critical and clinical cartographies - cornell university › linked docs › the... · edinburgh...

Critical and Clinical Cartographies

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd i5301_Radman & Sohn.indd i 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

New MaterialismsSeries editors: Iris van der Tuin and Rosi Braidotti

New Materialisms asks how materiality permits representation, actualises ethical subjectivities and innovates the political. The series will provide a discursive hub and an institutional home to this vibrant emerging fi eld and open it up to a wider readership.

Editorial Advisory boardMarie-Luise Angerer, Karen Barad, Corinna Bath, Barbara Bolt, Felicity Colman, Manuel DeLanda, Richard Grusin, Vicki Kirby, Gregg Lambert, Nina Lykke, Brian Massumi, Henk Oosterling, Arun Saldanha.

Books available What if Culture Was Nature All Along? Edited by Vicki KirbyCritical and Clinical Cartographies: Architecture, Robotics, Medicine, Philosophy Edited by Andrej Radman and Heidi Sohn

Books forthcomingArchitectural Materialisms: Non-Human CreativityEdited by Maria Voyatzaki

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd ii5301_Radman & Sohn.indd ii 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

Critical and Clinical Cartographies

Architecture, Robotics, Medicine, Philosophy

Edited by Andrej Radman and Heidi Sohn

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd iii5301_Radman & Sohn.indd iii 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

We publish academic books and journals in our selected subject areas across the humanities and social sciences, combining cutting-edge scholarship with high editorial and production values to produce academic works of lasting importance. For more information visit our website: edinburghuniversitypress.com

© editorial matter and organisation Andrej Radman and Heidi Sohn, 2017© the chapters their several authors, 2017

Edinburgh University Press Ltd The Tun – Holyrood Road, 12(2f) Jackson’s Entry, Edinburgh EH8 8PJ

Typeset in 11/13 Adobe Sabon byIDSUK (DataConnection) Ltd, andprinted and bound in Great Britain byCPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon CR0 4YY

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 1 4744 2111 9 (hardback)ISBN 978 1 4744 2112 6 (webready PDF)ISBN 978 1 4744 2113 3 (epub)

The right of Andrej Radman and Heidi Sohn to be identifi ed as the editors of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 (SI No. 2498).

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd iv5301_Radman & Sohn.indd iv 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

Contents

Acknowledgements vii

The Four Domains of the Plane of Consistency 1Andrej Radman and Heidi Sohn

Introduction: A Research into Human–Machine Technologies – Architecture’s Dream of a Bio Future 21

Arie Graafl and

Part I: Architecture

1. Urban Correlationism: A Matter of Access 61Stavros Kousoulas

2. Housing Biopolitics and Care 80Peg Rawes

3. Amorphous Continua 101Chris L. Smith

Part II: Robotics

4. Robots Don’t Care: Why Bots Won’t Reboot Architecture 123Christian Girard

5. The Convivial ART of Vortical Thinking 143Keith Evan Green

6. Emotive Embodiments 168Kas Oosterhuis

Part III: Medicine

7. Ecologies of Corporeal Space 187Katharina D. Martin

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd v5301_Radman & Sohn.indd v 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

8. Swimming in the Joint 205Rachel Prentice

9. Key-Hole Surgery: Minimally Invasive Technology 221Jenny Dankelman

Part IV: Philosophy

10. Elasticity and Plasticity: Anthropo-design and the Crisis of Repetition 243Sjoerd van Tuinen

11. Automata, Man-machines and Embodiment: Defl ating or Infl ating Life? 269Charles T. Wolfe

12. Generative Futures: On Affi rmative Ethics 288Rosi Braidotti

Notes on Contributors 309Index 313

vi contents

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd vi5301_Radman & Sohn.indd vi 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

Acknowledgements

This book is the result of the international conference Critical and Clin-ical Cartographies, which was organised by the Architecture Theory section, in collaboration with Hyperbody, of the Faculty of Architec-ture of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft), and held in the Armamentarium in Delft in November 2014. The editors wish to thank Arie Graafl and for suggesting the core theme for the conference and for generously sharing his research with us. Without him, the conference and this book would never have been possible. We would also like to extend our gratitude to the organising and scientifi c committees for their insights and feedback in the preparation of the conference and this book, and in particular to the staff of the Architecture Theory section – Patrick Healy, Stavros Kousoulas and Gregory Bracken – for their tire-less efforts and enduring support. To the Department of Architecture of the Faculty of Architecture of the TU Delft we owe the generous administrative support they have offered us throughout.

We are especially indebted to Carol Macdonald of Edinburgh Uni-versity Press (EUP) for her receptiveness and enthusiasm for our book project, and for her valuable editorial comments and assistance, and to Heleen Schröder, for the magnifi cent copyediting input and profession-alism in preparing this volume for publication.

We extend our special thanks to all the authors in this book for their generous contributions and cooperation. And last, but not least, we wish to thank our students, to whom we dedicate this book.

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd vii5301_Radman & Sohn.indd vii 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd viii5301_Radman & Sohn.indd viii 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

CHAPTER 5

The Convivial ART of Vortical Thinking

Keith Evan Green

Ask a young child to draw a robot, and (almost without exception) he or she responds by delineating with pencil or crayon a humanoid robot – symmetrical, boxy and awkward, part us, part machine. Indeed, this representation of robotics is the one that most adults maintain: robotics defi ned by anthropomorphism, most manifested as humanoid robots. It follows that a robot intended to care for you is presumed to be, again, a humanoid-robotic servant, or maybe a friendly, animal-like robotic companion, such as a furry white seal or a plush teddy bear. This presumption comes partly from media – the many humanoid robots featured in movies, television shows and comic strips – and partly from that ancestor of the humanoid robot, the robot before electricity. Indeed, one third of Lisa Nocks’s history of robotics, The Robot: The Life Story of a Technology,1 is devoted to such mechanical contrivances resembling human beings and animals – the precursors of electronic offspring that, for Nocks, is almost exclusively that artifi cial breed recognisable as the humanoid robot.

Without face or fur, with no or few words, behaving in a manner that is only vaguely familiar to us, an altogether different kind of car-ing robotics is being realised within my Architectural Robotics Lab (Cornell University, New York, USA) and in situ within the Roger C. Peace Rehabilitation Hospital (Greenville Hospital System Univer-sity Medical Center, South Carolina, USA). Very much a continuing project undertaken by this partnership, home+ (Fig. 16) is a suite of networked, distributed robotic furnishings integrated into existing domestic environments (for ageing in place) and healthcare facilities (for clinical care). home+ is our reply to the question, How can our everyday environments be outfi tted with assistive robotics promoting independent living?

A response to this question, coming from my trans-disciplinary design research team representing Architecture, Human Factors Psychology,

5301_Radman & Sohn.indd 1435301_Radman & Sohn.indd 143 09/12/16 4:48 PM09/12/16 4:48 PM

144 critical and clinical cartographies

Robotics, and Medicine, has to date been manifested as several digital simulations as well as to-scale and full-scale prototypes of the home+ suite of furnishings.2 In conceptualising home+ initially, the team quickly prototyped the home+ concept as an integrated vision, in all its com-plexity: the design of various furnishings interacting with one another and their users in a specifi c built environment, a studio apartment that we had designed purposefully for this research. Unlike the typical user engineering approach, we elected to realise this early prototype before we had acquired suffi cient data to responsibly guide it (in a measured, industrial design and engineering sense). The virtue of our quick and

Figure 16 home+, in concept, at home and hospital. Source: author.


the convivial art of VORTICAL thinking 145

early prototyping activity permitted us to get past the inevitable mishaps and unfruitful pathways to a home+ design.

1. An Assistive Robotic Table gently folds, extends and reconfi gures to support therapy, work and leisure activities.

2. An Intelligent Headboard adapts to the profi le of the patient’s back, morphing its supportive surface periodically to alter the patient’s position as a vehicle to ensure against bed sores. The Intelligent Headboard also offers storage, accommodates an oxy-gen tank as required and provides intelligent lighting for reading, work activities and ambient illumination.

3. A Sensitive, Mobile Rail is not unlike the vertical tubular-metal post found in metro cars – except that this one moves with you, pro-viding more or less assistance, like the arm of a friend, as the user moves between one location within the dwelling to another loca-tion, tracing the most common paths travelled in the course of a day. As envisioned, the Sensitive, Mobile Rail recognises how much assistance you may need, and ‘backs off’ from supporting the user when it senses the user is managing fi ne with less of its help.

4. Intelligent Storage manages, stores and delivers personal effects (including medical supplies), and communicates to caretak-ers when eyeglasses and other belongings are not moved over a period of time.

5. A Personal Assistant (not shown in these fi gures) retrieves objects stored around the room and away from the bed. The robot uses a vision-based recognition system via wireless communication to ensure that the robot retrieves the correct item.

Figure 17 home+ components. Source: author.



These fi ve components of the home+ suite of furnishings recognise and communicate with one another in their interactions with humans and, we envision, with still other home+ components. Figures 16 and 17 provide an impression of how the system may look and behave (and not its fi xed, pre-determined design). Indeed, towards realising the larger, distributed system of robotic furnishings, the research team persists in continuing iterative design and evaluation of the home+ con-cept, generating alternative, conceptual visualisations of home+ and prototyping numerous physical, functioning prototypes of its individ-ual components, identifi ed here and otherwise.

The Assistive, Robotic Table (ART)

As the research team wished to focus its effort not only on the big vision of the home+ concept but on a more developed and refi ned component of it, we dedicated considerable efforts on the Assistive Robotic Table (ART), given its relative complexity within home+. Our aim was to develop this key component as a fully functional prototype developed with the participation of clinical staff.

ART (Fig. 18) is a hybrid of the typical nightstand found in homes, and the over-the-bed table found in hospital rooms. We envision ART integrated into the domestic routines of its users, even as users transi-tion from home to clinic and, it is hoped, home again. Our research team hypothesises that users employing ART as part of their domestic

Figure 18 The assistive robotic table (ART) – our fi nal, fully functioning prototype. Source: author.


landscape will live independently, longer. Moreover, we expect ART to free familial caregivers from performing certain arduous tasks for ART’s target populations, allowing caregivers to devote more energies to meaningful, human interaction with ART’s users. In medical facili-ties, ART aims to augment the rehabilitation environment by improving patient well-being, rehabilitation and staff productivity (in this vexing moment of limited resources).

Along with the larger home+ environment to which it belongs, ART benefi ts from the convergence of advanced architectural design, computing and robotics largely absent from prior efforts in assistive technologies. In particular, this enabling technology is not distributed everywhere in the physical environment but where it is needed. It is not intended to be invisible (as per ubiquitous computing) but visible, attractive and integral to the home and the patient room by design and it is not meant to serve as a means for surveillance but rather as envi-ronmental support that recognises and dignifi es what people can do for themselves.

These attributes of ART and the larger home+ environment are of a kind identifi ed by Donald Norman as ‘the next UI breakthrough’, defi ned by ‘physicality’, and accomplished with ‘microprocessors, motors, actua-tors, and a rich assortment of sensors, transducers, and communication devices’.3 In broad theoretical terms, Nicholas Negroponte anticipated ART and the larger home+ environment in the 1970s in his vision of a ‘domestic ecosystem’ that regulates aspects of ‘environmental comfort and medical care’.4 More recent inspirations for ART include Malcolm McCullough’s plea for ‘architecturally situated interactions’, which ‘per-mit the elderly to “age in place” in their own homes’.5

Physically, ART is a signifi cant development of the over-the-bed table commonplace in hospital patient rooms. What distinguishes ART from the conventional over-the-bed table is its novel integration of physical design and functioning, coupled with an interactive human–object inter-face (Fig. 19). Integral to ART is a novel, plug-in, continuum-robotic therapy surface that helps patients perform upper-extremity therapy exercises of the wrist and hand, with or without the presence of the clinician (refer to Figs 21 and 24). Considered in depth shortly in this chapter, ART’s therapy surface was recognised as a key requirement of ART, following our early conceptualisation of the larger home+ vision, and as a signifi cant outcome of our ethnographic investigations in the clinical setting (or in the ‘wild’, as human–computer interaction (HCI) defi nes territories situated outside the lab). These ethnographic investi-gations suggested the promise of the therapy surface for rehabilitating




in particular the upper extremities (upper limbs) of post-stroke patients. Beforehand, it is useful to become acquainted with ART through a sce-nario, a hypothetical narrative telling the happy story of Amy meeting ART for the fi rst time. Amy had a stroke and has right hemiplegia (paralysis of the right extremities) and aphasia (speech and language problems). After treatment in the hospital, Amy returned home, fi tted with home+, the same suite of robotic-embedded furnishings that sup-ported her in her patient room. home+ has uploaded Amy’s preferences as acquired from her hospital stay, and modifi es these preferences and those of her caregivers over time to best support Amy’s recovery. Amy relies on the Assistive Robotic Table of home+ every day (Fig. 20): its therapy surface helps Amy rehabilitate her arm; ART tilts and changes height to best accommodate Amy’s activities; ART’s non-verbal lighting cues remind Amy to take her medications; and ART learns and adapts to the gestures, a form of nonverbal communication that Amy performs with her right arm as she regains more capacity in moving it. ART logs Amy’s reading time as a wellness metric, and ART initiates storage of Amy’s reading glasses when she has fi nished reading. These functions and others help Amy improve more quickly. ART’s components rec-ognise and partly remember, communicate with, and cooperate with her, her caregivers and the other components of home+, empowering Amy to remain in her home for as long as possible, even as her physical capabilities alter over time; and, in more grave circumstances, affording

Figure 19 ART’s key components. Source: author.


Amy some semblance of feeling ‘at home’ as she moves to an assisted facility also equipped with home+.

While this storytelling acquaints us with ART, we also know from life experience that good stories don’t always translate well to the real world. Accordingly, in developing the full-scale, full-functioning ART proto-type, my research team needed to subject ART to the clinical environ-ment where healthcare assistance is delivered and received (see Fig. 21). In so doing, we conducted fi ve iterative phases of research.6 We involved healthcare physicians and occupational, speech and physical therapists. We conducted these research activities within the aforementioned stu-dio apartment of our own design, our purpose-built home+ lab at the

Figure 20 In the hospital with ART and ‘Amy’: six instances. Source: author.




Roger C. Peace Rehabilitation Hospital of the Greenville Health System (Greenville, South Carolina, USA). As patient populations of rehabilita-tion hospitals typically have a high number of post-stroke patients, and as such patients partake in therapies employing over-the-bed tables, the post-stroke population was a particularly apt target for our research on the design of a forward-looking, over-the-bed table.

Convivial or Enslaving

There is no doubt that assistive technologies like ART and the larger home+ suite of robotic furnishings to which it belongs is urgently needed. The global population continues to age, healthcare costs have been increasing, and there is a smaller segment of society to both care for and pay for the well-being of older and clinical populations. It is estimated that by 2025, in the United States as in many nations around the globe, there will be a shortage of physicians and nurses, and by 2040 there will be more than 79.7 million adults in the United States alone who will be 65 or older – a 92 per cent increase from 2011. home+, the response from my research team, strives to reduce the bur-den on healthcare staff (to deliver their services) and a decreasing tax

Figure 21 ART in the hospital, undergoing evaluation. Source: author.


base (to pay for this service), while meeting patient needs and ensuring the well-being of an increasingly older population.

Given these alarming trends, few would doubt the need for such assistive technology; however, the character of it – its behaviours and appearance – is a topic of continued debate. The lively debate over the character of caring robotics was anticipated in a remarkable book, Tools for Conviviality by Ivan Illich, in which the author recognises two trajectories for new technologies: one aiming ‘to extend human capability’, and the other, used ‘to contract, eliminate, or replace human function’.7 Illich classifi es the former as ‘convivial tools’ that foster ‘self-realisation’.8 Convivial tools, writes Illich, ‘enable the layman to shape his immediate environment’.9 ‘Manipulatory tools’, instead, reduce ‘the range of choice and motivation’ for the user, destroying his or her capac-ity to creatively, ‘playfully’ engage society.10 For Illich, the convivial tool is exemplifi ed by the public library, an information machine providing resources openly and freely to the public.

In Tools for Conviviality, Illich refers to the historical hypothesis that machines were meant ‘to replace slaves’. For the discussion of this chapter, note that the word robot comes from the Czech robota meaning ‘forced labor’.11 What both astonishes and distresses Illich is that machines, intended to mostly ‘replace slaves’, ultimately ‘enslave’ those they intend to free.12 Illich locates the blame for this unexpected turn in the designers of such machines; that, too often with machines, it is left to their ‘designers to determine the meaning and expectation of others’ in human–machine interaction without the participation in the design process of a representative group of likely users.13 Illich’s plea is instead to

give people tools that guarantee their right to work with high, independent effi ciency, thus simultaneously eliminating the need for either slaves or masters and enhancing each person’s range of freedom. People need new tools to work with rather than tools that ‘work’ for them.14

Indeed, Tools for Conviviality was published in 1973, and perhaps recent history suggests that those who design and build machines strive, as my design research team has, to become more enlightened (more convivial) in their approach to design. Co-design, iterative design, human-centred design and participatory design are common terms employed by a not insignifi cant part of the academic community and industry entrusted to design today’s machines. This more inclusive process of designing the most complex and sensitive of artefacts, caring robots, is fundamentally what this chapter hopes to capture.




Robotics that Give

Clearly, home+ and its key component, ART, represent a breed of robotics quite apart from humanoid robots. Whereas the humanoid robot is meant to resemble us and is (given its appearance) expected to behave like us, home+ is a suite of furnishings distributed through an everyday physical space – robotics made integral with furnishings in familiar domestic rooms that, at least typologically, are familiar to us. As well, many humanoid robots (and most industrial robots) rely on rigid links to move, whereas key parts of ART and home+ depend on softer means to more fl uid movements, as afforded technically speak-ing by pneumatics (compressed air, the pressure of which is digitally regulated) and less frequently tendons (steel cables pulled by digitally controlled motors). ART’s therapy surface, in particular, requires a delicate but exacting ‘touch’ to impart confi dence to patients and their caregivers that it can assist them.

To meet these demands, rigid-link robotics is not a likely candidate. The shortcomings of rigid-link robotics (commonplace in factories and often used for humanoid robots) are comprised of a series of heavy links, few in number, actuated by electric motors. The movements of rigid-link robots are correspondingly stiff but precise, which contrasts signifi cantly with the less distracting, nuanced, and even graceful move-ments exhibited by ART’s therapy surface, actuated by pneumatics. A rigid-link, electro-mechanical system is contrastingly heavy and – worse for unstructured environments – unyielding upon contact with another physical mass. In simplest terms, these rigid-link robots don’t ‘give’ when they collide with people and their physical property.

Consider, then, two of the most unstructured environments inhab-ited by two of the most vulnerable human populations, both of which defi ne the home+ context: dwellings inhabited by older people, and healthcare facilities occupied by patients. In these two demanding con-texts, the home+ suite of furnishings must not only move in a manner that is safe, comprehensible and pleasing to their users, but also be able to ‘give’ – to be compliant upon contact with people and physical things. In such an intimate setting as home+, robotics will inevitably collide with people and their physical property; consequently, they must be made compliant to avoid costly and potentially grave consequences.

Compliant, fl uid, graceful kinematics is characteristic of the robotics classifi cation called continuum robotics referenced earlier as exemplifi ed by ART’s therapy surface. An emerging subfi eld, continuum robotics, describes the kinds of robotics with smooth, compliant backbones that


render their movement fl uid, natural and more life-like. Overall, the smooth movement and softness of continuum robots lend themselves to intimate and elicited interactions with users, while stiff and hard, rigid-linked robots are better suited to the demands for strength, repetition and accuracy of industrial applications. As a fl exible, continuous 2-D programmable surface, ART’s therapy surface represents a new class of continuum robotics capable of contributing to the formation of physical space within the built environment scale.

Recognise that the therapy surface of ART bends in more than one direction (it morphs across its surface). Consequently, the therapy sur-face can assume a multitude of shapes that aren’t stiff like commonplace industrial robots, or limited by bending in section alone. Rather, ART’s therapy surface smoothly morphs in two dimensions (like the sea). Given its continuous and highly manoeuvrable backbone, a 2D continuum robot like ART’s therapy surface is classifi ed as invertebrate. The con-trol of such a robot – the use of sensors, actuators and algorithms to confi gure it – is a diffi cult matter. Unlike the control of rigid-link robots, the control of continuum robots often involves controlling for not only bending but also the extension/contraction of the physical mass, as com-pared to simply controlling the hinging of an axial joint in the typical rigid-link robot, comprised of a limited number of joints.

Let’s consider the bending in two different continuum robots in con-cept: one of these is one-dimensional (1D – it bends in section only), and the other is two-dimensional (2D). If you take two short segments of a continuum robot and connect them, head-to-head, you then have a con-tinuum robot in the form of an extended line (much like an elephant’s trunk). The bending that occurs within each segment of such a linear robot is defi ned as one-dimensional. (A well-known example of this kind of robotic appendage is the OctArm developed by Ian Walker, my close research collaborator.) To make the kinematics of a one-dimensional (trunk-like) continuum robot relatively less cumbersome to defi ne, it theoretically reconfi gures as the ‘essentially invertebrate’ snake just described, having a much larger number of smaller links that bend at distinct and well-defi ned points in such a way that each of its segments bends at constant curvature. If, instead of connecting segments head-to-head, you connected them in such a way that they form a surface (for example, three segments to make a triangular surface, four segments to make a quadrilateral surface), and then co-join several such surfaces, you have the continuum robotic surface exemplifi ed by the compliant therapy surface of ART. The bending that occurs within each surface of this continuum robotic surface is defi ned as two-dimensional. As such,




the kinematics for such a continuum robotic surface is highly complex, as a continuum robot has, theoretically, an infi nite number of joints across a surface, rather than along a line (as in OctArm) and, conse-quently, an infi nite number of ways in two dimensions to assume its goal confi guration. To make the kinematics of a two-dimensional continuum robot surface (like ART’s) relatively less cumbersome to defi ne, it theo-retically reconfi gures as a surface of many snakes joined to one another, at their sides, so that stretches of this surface has constant curvature. Consequently, the problem of determining the shape of this robotic sur-face, its kinematics, is simplifi ed compared to a determination made on the basis of the curvatures of a considerable number of very short seg-ments of the surface. But even when characterising the ART surface (and continuum robotics generally) as essentially invertebrate robots exhibit-ing constant curvature, the number and complexity of terms involved in their kinematics can be formidable. (The kinematics for such a surface is reported in a technical paper authored by our research team.)15

A more tangible way of understanding continuum robotic sur-faces, and so, ART’s therapy surface, is through the qualitative study of functional, physical prototypes. To realise ART’s therapy surface, my research team built a working prototype from a square surface of conventional foam (36 cm on a side), two McKibben actuators, some zip ties to fasten the actuators to the foam surfaces and a Kinect from Microsoft’s computer gaming system. McKibben actuators are artifi cial muscles (that is, bladders) that expand and contract as they are fi lled or depleted of compressed air. According to the recipe advanced jointly by my lab and by the co-joined lab of my close collaborator, Ian Walker, we built our own McKibben actuators using high-temperature, silicone rubber tubing, expandable mesh sleeves, nylon reducing couplings and nylon, single-barbed, tube-fi tting plugs (refer to Fig. 23). Digital pres-sure-regulators control the precise pressure of air delivered to the actua-tors. Flexible tubing connects the system of actuators, regulators, the air compressor (a common air tank will do) and the control computer (a common laptop will do). We attached two actuators to the square sur-face of sheet foam in four different orientations: running the actuators in parallel, forming a perpendicular (‘Swiss’) cross with them and making 45 and 90 degree angles of them. We marked twenty-fi ve points on the square surface that we tracked with the Kinect sensor, each point being either 8 cm or 10 cm from the previous point. For each muscle arrange-ment, two sets of data were collected. The fi rst set of data measured the depth (the distance of the point on the surface from the sensor) of the un-actuated surface. The second set measured the depth of the points on the actuated surface by using a computer programme that allowed the


user to select feature points in two different image frames. The selected points in the fi rst image frame captured the depth for the un-actuated surface at each point, and the selected points in the second image frame captured the depth for the actuated surface at each point. With respect to the surface, the Kinect sensor was positioned directly in front of it, at the same height of it and parallel to its surface. To calculate the distance that each point on the surface moved in the x-direction (that is, the height that the surface moved), the actuated data was subtracted from the un-actuated data. Once the x-distance data had been calculated for each point, the x-distances for the same points were calculated using the appropriate (that is, muscle-arrangement dependent) kinematic model; then, the mean square error (MSE) between the two distances was cal-culated. Additionally, the MSE between the same kinematic data and the physical data for an un-actuated surface, which would have x-distances of zero, was calculated for comparison. This MSE would represent the worst-case scenario and should, therefore, be larger than the MSE for the actuated surface. If all this is a bit diffi cult to follow, Figure 22 con-veniently visualises the outcome that the theoretical kinematics for the different muscle arrangements reasonably approximated the data we collected from testing the physical surface.

The analytic exploration just described guided the more complex design of ART’s therapy surface. Rather than two actuators bending a square sheet of foam, the therapy surface (Fig. 23) was actuated by multiple actuators and required exacting behaviours that match fi ve therapeutic exercises for the upper limbs performed by post-stroke patients, and guided by physical therapists working without any medi-cal devices during physical therapy sessions.

Figure 22 Evaluating the therapy surface’s kinematic models: qualitative versus simulated results. Source: author.




With these starting points in mind, the research team iteratively designed and evaluated the therapy surface in tandem with the larger fi ve-phase ART investigation (referenced earlier), translating the early studies (with the foam square and two actuators) into a rehabilitative robotic surface. Notably, in phase one, specifi cally through observa-tions of therapy sessions, the research team drew three inferences that would signifi cantly impact the therapy surface’s design requirements. First, we inferred that our continuum surface could perform many therapeutic exercises, including wrist fl exion and extension, forearm pronation and supination, fl exor synergy, shoulder fl exion, shoulder rotation and cross-body movements as well as arm cupping for sup-port. Second, we inferred that these same exercises were suffi ciently commonplace in therapy sessions so that our therapy surface would prove useful. Third, we inferred that our surface could provide enough variability in the movements of these exercises to accommodate vari-ous injury levels and types.

In our design development, we ultimately divided the therapy move-ments into those that can be achieved by our continuum robotic surface (wrist extension and fl exion, forearm cupping, forearm pronation and

Figure 23 ART’s therapy surface – working prototype. Source: author.


supination) and those that can be achieved simply by the movement of ART on which the continuum surface was mounted: fl exor synergy, shoulder fl exion, shoulder rotation and cross-body movements. To assess how well the various behaviours of the robots matched the expectations of the therapists for each of these exercises, we prepared and presented a video of the various therapy movements performed by the prototyped surface to a group of therapists, and asked them the following:

Figure 24 ART’s therapy surface performing a therapy. Source: author.




Is this how you would perform wrist fl exion?Is this how you would perform wrist extension?Does this device offer enough variability for various patient types?Would you use this device?Do you think a patient would use this device?Do you think this device is safe?How does this device improve therapy sessions?What information would you want this device to gather?What other therapy movements do you think the device can perform?The fi ve iterative phases of design research resulted in a comprehensive

prototype of a continuum robotic surface for stroke rehabilitation ther-apy that garnered positive and promising responses from the clinicians.

The Vortical: Thinking about Architecture and Engineering Differently

ART’s therapy surface, characterised as smooth, continuous, fl owing and dynamic, suggests a very different way of thinking about surfaces in architecture like walls, fl oors and ceilings. As already considered for ART’s therapy surface, soft, smooth, fl uid reconfi gurations are essential to its success as it supports and enhances everyday human activities in, very often, intimate confi nes. Figure 25 provides a summary of four ‘soft robotic’ efforts, conceived by me and my close collaborator, Ian Walker, which are counter to a rigid-link, robotics approach. Similarly, Figure 26 captures in graphic, even macabre terms our concept of home+, where we imagine a humanoid robot being dismembered as limbs, head and

Figure 25 A summary of four ‘soft robotic’ efforts from the research labs of the author and I. Walker, which are counter to a rigid-link robotics approach (far left) (diagram by the author). Source: author.


Figure 26 From a humanoid robot to a living room (diagram by the author). Source: author.




torso that we re-package and fi ne-tune as a living room full of lively, dis-tributed furnishings, each one tuned to specifi c tasks and playing its part, each one knowing something about the others and something about you.

By now it should be evident that robotics embedded in (that is, integral with) the built environment (from the scale of furniture to that of the metropolis) opens up a very different way of conceptualis-ing architecture. The notion that the physical mass of an architectural work is set in motion by robotics, reconfi guring its spatial quality, dis-rupts our fundamental understanding of Architecture as fi rmitas, in its being fi rm, constant, solid, static and stable. When robotics is integral with the physical fabric of architecture (at wide-ranging scales) is clas-sifi ed as continuum rather than rigid link, its fi rmitas (that is, fi rmness, stasis, constancy) is arguably more upended, as the architectural work is not only moving but, in a way, quivering as if it were alive, and shape-shifting into something that seems foreign to what it was at an earlier point in time.

Before ending this consideration of ART’s therapy surface, it is therefore useful to ponder the questions suggested by it, and the larger ART artefact, and our vision of the home+ to which they belong, and fi nally to the World Wide Web and the Internet of Things as specu-lated in the concluding remarks of this chapter: What kind of place is this? and How does it refl ect our current state (or, you may say, disposition)? In a curious way, French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and psychoanalyst Félix Guattari together ponder the second question lit-erally and abstractly, in A Thousand Plateaus. In the twelfth ‘plateau’, exploring the relationship between the State and its military, Deleuze and Guattari posit two models of thinking and acting that, strangely, provide a compelling perception that applies well to ART and home+ – the kinds of places they make, and how they refl ect, interact with, and somewhat become us.16 These two models are the authoritative model exemplifi ed by the State, and the vortical model exemplifi ed by the military. Architectural Robotics, as offered here, is very much the latter, and Architecture and Engineering, very much the former.

The authoritative model is characterised by: the straight line, the parallel (laminar) fl ow, solid things and a spatial environment that is closed, striated and sedentary. In its propensity to edify and monumen-talise, Architecture and Engineering, argue Deleuze and Guattari, have ‘an apparent affi nity for the State’ and its authoritative model. The authoritative model is manifested in the built environment as ‘walls, enclosures and roads between enclosures’, ‘bridges’, ‘monuments’ and, generally, a ‘metric plane’ that is ‘lineal, territorial, and numerical’.17


In contrast, the vortical model is characterised by: the curvilinear line, the spiral (vortical) fl ow, the fl ow of matter and a spatial environ-ment characterised as open, smooth, fl owing and fl uid.18 Free fl owing and measureless, the vortical model is manifested in the natural envi-ronment in the desert and the sea.19 Outside of its manifestations in nature, the vortical model is exemplifi ed by the intermezzo of music, the space of Zen, and in the built environment (in a rare exception) as the impossibly slender, sky-reaching Gothic cathedral.20

More generally, Deleuze and Guattari characterise the vortical space as ‘vectors of deterritorialisation in perpetual motion’.21 Additionally, Deleuze and Guattari, referencing phenomenologist Edmund Husserl, describe the vortical space as a ‘fuzzy aggregate’, ‘a kind of intermedi-ary’, ‘vague’ and ‘yet rigorous’.22 Something of the same is central to the thinking of Manuel Castells in his concept of the ‘space of fl ows’.23 For Castells, as for Deleuze and Guattari, the fl uid, vortical ‘space’ is a way of thinking and making that fi nds validation in our propensity for ‘neurological play’, in the lure of controlled ‘ambiguity’ that ‘engages and challenges the brain to allow multiple meanings’.24

If this philosophical equation between form and thinking seems itself vague and ambiguous, we need only walk the linear boulevards that cut through Paris, Rome and Washington, D.C. to connect urban form to fi gureheads (Napoleon III, Mussolini, George Washington). Today, we have not the grand boulevard but rather the kingly quarters of the private domain, exemplifi ed by Apple’s new Cupertino headquarters. Accommodating some 12,000 Apple employees, this fi ve-billion-dollar building designed by Foster + Partners (with Arup as engineers) takes the form of a perfect glass circle defi ning a perfectly circular courtyard. No matter how elegant its glass skin, this closed, authoritative form – an apple without the bite – chillingly evokes Dave Eggers’ aptly titled The Circle that chronicles a tech employee caught in the web of a colos-sal, oligarchical Information Technology (IT) company.

The other side of this equation, the vortical, surfaces in the architec-tural writings and works of Robert Venturi (often times, in collaboration with his wife, Denise Scott Brown) in his theory of a ‘both-and’ archi-tecture, rather than an ‘either-or’ architecture: an architectural work characterised as both complex and contradictory, both high-culture and low-culture, both contemporary and drawn from history.25 Much like Venturi but from the perspective of robotics and not architecture, Rodney Brooks envisions a future in the both-and – both organic and mechanical.26 Suggesting that the convergence of human intelligence and machine intelligence will come only by way of a new conceptual




framework, outside that of digital computing, Brooks calls for a bio-technical body, and sees its emergence in our becoming increasingly more robotic (by way of, for instance, advanced prostheses) while robots are becoming more biological (in their capacity to sense, adapt, learn, move and otherwise actuate).27 Presumably for Brooks, we will meet one day in the middle: human-machine, machine-human.

But unlike Venturi’s dialectical, physically static, and aestheticised both-and architecture, and taking a more tempered view of Brooks’ prophetic, bio-technical body, home+ and its ART suggests a very dif-ferent way of thinking about architecture and robotics today, whereby architecture is more than an aesthetic search or a stylistic path, and robotics, more than a technological quest. Something at the thresh-old between architecture and robotics and their long-standing concerns is captured in Deleuze and Guattari’s ‘Concrete Rules and Abstract Machines’, in which they defi ne a novel ‘technological plane’, as

not simply made of formed substances, aluminum, plastic, electric wire, etc., nor of organising forms, program, prototypes, etc., but of a totality (ensemble) of unformed matters which present no more than degrees of intensity . . . and diagrammatic functions which only present differential equations.28

With ART as its key component, home+ represents a start to realising the dream of a living room, a distributed suite of robotic furnishing that ‘come to life’ in the ways De Chirico dreamt – furnishing that know about us, and know about one another. Furnished with this informa-tion about itself and its surroundings, the home+ living room reconfi g-ures, smoothly and softly, to support us in our everyday lives. But more than this, the convergence of architecture and robotics, as manifested as home+, promises new vocabularies of design, and new, complex realms of understanding ourselves in this dynamic, expanding ecosystem of physical bits, digital bytes and biology.

Speculations on Scaling Up

Had Ivan Illich written Tools for Conviviality today, he would surely have recognised today’s starchitecture shaped by a short list of globe-trotting architect-stars as epitomising his classifi cation of the manipu-latory tool, an architecture designed by individual geniuses with little or no participation by its likely inhabitants, funded by the wealthi-est, mostly private patrons, and servings as iconic status symbols – works of art of the largest physical scale that anchor a portfolio beheld


by those who can pay for it. Likewise, Illich today would surely have recognised the computing apps and operating systems shaped by Apple, Microsoft, Facebook, and other oligarchical IT entities as epitomising the manipulatory tool: tracking what we do, whom we know and what we prefer – a control system ripe for abuse. Can we envision another future where architecture and computing converge, a more convivial and caring future outside starchitecture and these operating systems and applications, outside the World Wide Web, outside the Smart City or e-topia? May we say – instead, in a bit of a silly way – that the future where architecture and computing converge resides on cyberPLAYce, at once local and global, physical and digital?

While it may not be possible to disconnect from the Internet for long, and arguably it may not be desirable to do so, imagine a future that relies less on the net and more on a cyber-physical mesh network: a digital-physical communications network far looser than the Internet and its associated apps and operating systems – less formalised, less oligarchical, more decentralised, more community-responsive, more ad hoc, more localised and more fi ne-tuned to individual needs and oppor-tunities. Like a wireless mesh network, this more expansive, playful plan for the convergence of architecture and computing, cyberPLAYce, is populated by cyber-physical nodes of activity that may or may not form a vague connectivity with one another.

What does cyberPLAYce look like? How does it behave? How do we design it? Indeed for any relevant designer of architecture, computing systems and their hybrids working today, ‘the primary design question is how to architect a complex system to be extendable to multiple arbi-trary scales in time and space’.29 On cyberPLAYce, the design response may look and behave something like this: distributed cyber-physical nodes decoupling from and re-engaging the Internet to relative degrees, as determined by local situations defi ned partly by human–machine interaction and partly by individual and community control. How such nodes receive, transmit and interpret signals from one another is defi ned as ‘interoperability on a systematic level’.30 Such interoperability across cyberPLAYce has the potential to provide more apt, more assistive, more augmenting computing resources to individuals and their local communities. What the oligarchical entities receive in return for relin-quishing a bit of pervasive control to these more localised mesh net-works is focused, localised tutoring of their Artifi cial Intelligence (AI) platforms, as well as the knowledge required to deliver more focused content to individual cyber-physical ‘neighbourhoods’.




To make CyberPLAYce more tangible, let’s refer to a modest inter-active and adaptive built environment just underway in my research lab that would especially benefi t from such a network. LIBRARY-CUBED is a physically reconfi gurable, technology-rich library unit, ten foot on a side, that can be installed in branch libraries or other public buildings in underserved communities. Accordingly, a single LIBRARY-CUBED, a single ‘architectural robotic’ node, can exhibit a variety of connectivity conditions: it may function off-line; or it may join the Internet for increments of time or continuously; or it may form a mesh network, for increments of time or continuously, with other LIBRARY-CUBEDs or, maybe, LIBRARY-CUBEDS and some services at the library, staffed by librarians; or it may form a mesh network (as above), which in turn connects to other mesh networks for increments of time or continuously. In this computing-future, the information transmitted across individual nodes doesn’t fl ow evenly through-out the mesh network, but ‘hops about’ to neighbouring nodes as affi nities arise from interactions between itself, people and the things around and inside it: that amalgamation of physical bits, digital bytes and biology, at a given instant. As well, recognise that while such an underserved community may never see the likes of a library designed by a starchitect, it may nevertheless have ‘high-design’ delivered to it in the form of this compact, architectural-robotic ‘package’. Such a package, installed in an existing civic building in underserved neigh-bourhoods, is capable of reconfi guring in ways that offer many of the architectural experiences that may fi ll the much larger volume of the main library, designed by the starchitect, found in the wealthiest cities. This cyber-physical system is of a kind that can create a small home – your home, your neighbourhood – for architecture and com-puting resources.

While the overwhelming tendency in architecture and computing is to globalise, cyberPLAYce has the potential to domesticate. On a typical day on cyberPLAYce, cyber-physical artefacts of all scales and capabilities collectively create a commodious, convivial home for you, situating your meaning within a broader networked world that yet provides you some locus of control. This future where architecture and computing converges, promises a robust, dynamic, strategically decentralised, ecological, bottom-up platform for the cooperative interaction across computing, the built environment and people. This would be Illich’s convivial society, ‘designed’, in his words, ‘to allow all its members the most autonomous action be means of tools least controlled by others’.31


Notes

1. Nocks, The Robot. 2. This aspect of the research is elaborated in Threatt et al., ‘Vision of the

Patient Room’. 3. Norman, ‘Next UI Breakthrough’. 4. Negroponte, Soft Architecture Machines, pp. 127–8. 5. McCullough, Digital Ground, p. xx. 6. These fi ve phases of research are further elaborated in Threatt et al.,

‘Assistive Robotic Table’. 7. Illich, Tools for Conviviality, xii. 8. Ibid. p. 24. 9. Ibid. p. 34.10. Ibid. p. 29.11. The term ‘robot’ was coined in K. Čapek’s 1920 play, R. U. R. (‘Rossum’s

Universal Robots’).12. Illich, Tools for Conviviality, p. 10.13. Ibid. p. 21.14. Ibid. p. 11.15. Merino et al., ‘Forward Kinematic Model’. In this section, I’m also

indebted to Jessica Merino for her MS thesis work in our lab. Merrino, Continuum Robotic Surface.

16. Deleuze and Guattari, Nomadology. (Nomadology is the English translation of a chapter from A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.)

17. Ibid. pp. 88, 51, 22, 45, 30 and 63 (the last, with italics by Deleuze and Guattari).

18. Ibid. p. 18.19. Ibid. p. 48.20. Ibid. pp. 50, 45, 22.21. Ibid. p. 62.22. Ibid. p. 96.23. Castells introduced the concept of ‘space of fl ows’ in his The Informa-

tional City. With respect to the consideration of this book, see also Cas-tells, Rise of the Network Society.

24. Mallgrave, Architect’s Brain, p. 149.25. Elaborating this theory is a canonic book for the discipline of architec-

ture, Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Ignasi de Solá-Morales and his concept of a ‘Weak Architecture’ is arguably a better refl ection of vortical thinking than Venturi’s dialectical both/and (see Solá-Morales, ‘Weak Architecture’).

26. Brooks, ‘I, Rodney Brooks, Am a Robot’, p. 73. In this instance again, there is a marvelous analogue in architectural thinking found in Rykwert, ‘Organic and Mechanical’. Here Joseph Rykwert traces the co-mingling of the terms ‘organic’ and ‘mechanical’ in architectural thought, beginning




with Vitruvius’s treatise (where ‘the Latin oganicus did not mean anything very different from machinicus’), to Gottfried Semper, Owen Jones and John Ruskin (all of whom cultivated ‘ideas about a new way of imitat-ing nature, or relating the organism to the built form’) (pp. 13 and 17). In the conclusion of his paper, Rykwert laments that while architects have long been preoccupied with nature as inspiration for decoration and form, there is not yet a ‘theory of architecture based on a direct appeal to . . . the nature that biology and chemistry study’ (p. 18). Perhaps some aspects of this chapter represent small steps in the direction that Rykwert had anticipated.

27. Brooks, ‘I, Rodney Brooks, Am a Robot’, pp. 73–4.28. Deleuze and Guattari, ‘Concrete Rules and Abstract Machines’.29. Horváth, ‘What the Design Theory of Social-Cyber-Physical Systems

Must Describe, Explain and Predict?’, p. 116.30. Kominars, ‘Interoperability Case Study’.31. Illich, Tools for Conviviality, p. 20.

BibliographyBrooks, Rodney, ‘I, Rodney Brooks, Am a Robot’, IEEE Spectrum, Volume

45, Issue 6 (June 2008), pp. 71–5.Castells, Manuel, The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic

Restructuring, and the Urban-Regional Process (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989).

Castells, Manuel, The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).

Deleuze, Gilles and Fé lix Guattari, ‘Concrete Rules and Abstract Machines’, SubStance, Vol. 13, Issue 3/4 44–45 (1984), pp. 7–19.

Deleuze, Gilles and Fé lix Guattari, Nomadology: The War Machine (New York: Semiotext(e), 1986).

Horváth, Imre, ‘What the Design Theory of Social-Cyber-Physical Systems Must Describe, Explain and Predict?’, in An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design: Philosophy, Approaches and Empirical Explorations, ed. Amaresh Chakrabarti and Lucienne T. M. Blessing (London: Springer, 2014), pp. 99–120.

Illich, Ivan, Tools for Conviviality (London: Marion Boyars, [1973] 2009).Kominars, Paul, ‘Interoperability Case Study: Internet of Things (IoT)’, in The

Berkman Center for Internet & Society Research Publication Series (The Berk-man Center for Internet & Society), 31 March 2012 <https://cyber.harvard.edu/node/97248> (accessed 12 April 2016).

Mallgrave, Harry Francis, The Architect’s Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity, and Architecture (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010).

McCullough, Malcolm, Digital Ground: Architecture, Pervasive Computing, and Environmental Knowing (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004).


Merino, Jessica, Anthony L. Threatt, Ian D. Walker, and Keith E. Green, ‘Forward Kinematic Model for Continuum Robotic Surfaces’, in Proceedings of IROS 2012: the 2012 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal, October 2012, pp. 3,453–60.

Merrino, Jessica, Continuum Robotic Surface: Forward Kinematics Analysis and Implementation (Clemson, SC: Clemson Univerisity, 2013).

Negroponte, Nicholas, Soft Architecture Machines (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1975).

Nocks, Lisa, The Robot: The Life Story of a Technology (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007).

Norman, Donald A., ‘The Next UI Breakthrough, Part 2: Physicality’, ACM interactions, July and August 2007, pp. 46–7.

Rykwert, Joseph, ‘Organic and Mechanical’, Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics, Vol. 22 (Autumn 1992), pp. 11–18.

Solá-Morales, Ignasi de, ‘Weak Architecture’, in Architecture Theory since 1968, ed. C. Michal Hays (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), pp. 614–23.

Threatt, Anthony L., Jessica Merino, Keith E. Green, Ian D. Walker, Johnell O. Brooks et al. ‘A Vision of the Patient Room as an Architectural Robotic Ecosystem’, in Proceedings of IROS 2012: The 2012 IEEE/RSJ Interna-tional Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, Vilamoura, Algarve, Portugal, October 2012, pp. 3,322–3.

Threatt, Anthony L. et al., ‘An Assistive Robotic Table for Older and Post-Stroke Adults: Results from Participatory Design and Evaluation Activities with Clinical Staff’, in Proceedings of CHI ’14, the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM Press, 2014), pp. 673–82.

Venturi, Robert, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1966).



Notes on Contributors

Andrej Radman has been teaching design and theory courses at Delft Uni-versity of Technology, Faculty of Architecture since 2004. A graduate of the Zagreb School of Architecture in Croatia, he is a licensed architect and recipient of the Croatian Architects Association Annual Award for Housing Architecture in 2002. Radman received his Master’s and Doctoral Degrees from TU Delft and joined the Architecture Theory Section as Assistant Pro-fessor in 2008. He is a member of the editorial board of the architecture theory journal Footprint.

Heidi Sohn is Associate Professor of Architecture Theory at the Architecture Department of the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft. She received her doc-toral title in Architecture Theory from the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft in 2006. Since 2007 she has been academic coordinator of the Architecture Theory Section. Her main areas of investigation include genealogical enquiries of the postmodern theoretical landscape from the 1970s to the present, as well as diverse geopolitical and politico-economic expressions typical of late capitalist urbanisation.

Rosi Braidotti (BA Hons Australian National University, 1978; PhD, Univer-sité de Paris, Panthéon-Sorbonne, 1981; Honorary Degrees Helsinki, 2007 and Linkoping, 2013) is Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities (FAHA), 2009; Member of the Academia Europaea (MAE), 2014; Knight-hood in the order of the Netherlands Lion, 2005; and is Distinguished Uni-versity Professor and founding Director of the Centre for the Humanities at Utrecht University. Her latest books are: The Posthuman (2013), Nomadic Subjects (2011) and Nomadic Theory: The Portable Rosi Braidotti (2011). www.rosibraidotti.com

Jenny Dankelman has a degree in Mathematics, System and Control Engi-neering from the University of Groningen and is professor in Minimally Inva-sive Technology at the Delft University of Technology since 2001. Her work focuses on the design of novel medical instruments, medical haptics, training and simulation systems, and patient safety. See www.misit.nl. She cooper-ates with surgeons and interventionalists of, among others, Leiden University Medical Center (UMC), Erasmus Medical Center (MC) Rotterdam, Reinier



de Graaf Gasthius (RdGG) Hospital Delft and Academic Medical Center (AMC) Amsterdam. Application areas are minimally invasive surgical, needle and endovascular interventions.

Christian Girard is a licensed architect and a theoretician living in Paris. He did a Master’s in Urban planning at Ecole Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (ENPC), received a Doctorate in Philosophy (Université Paris I Sorbonne) and holds an Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches from Université Paris 8. After serving as Professeur at Ecole d’Architecture Paris-Villemin (1993–9) where he was Chair (1996–8), he was a founding member in 2000 of the Ecole N.S. d’Architecture Paris-Malaquais, where he is Professor and heads the Digital Knowledge Department.

Arie Graafl and was a visiting researcher to Nanjing University, faculty of Architecture, working on a publication on urbanism (Cities in Transition, NAi/010 Publishers, 2015). He was a visiting research professor at the Uni-versity of Hong Kong in 2014–15, and was the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (German Academic Exchange Service) (DAAD) professor at Anhalt University, teaching at the Dessau Institute of Architecture (Anhalt Hochschule Anhalt/Anhalt University of Applied Sciences HS)/Dessau Inter-national Architecture Graduate School (Anhalt HS) (DIA). in Dessau. He was professor in Architecture Theory at the Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft until 2011 (emeritus). He has lectured internationally and published exten-sively in these areas.

Keith Evan Green is Professor of Design and Mechanical Engineering at Cor-nell University. His research focuses on addressing problems and opportunities of an increasingly digital society by developing and testing meticulous, artfully designed, cyber-physical (robotic) artefacts at larger scale. His abstract draws partly from his book, Architectural Robotics: Ecosystems of Bits, Bytes and Biology (MIT Press, 2016).

Stavros Kousoulas studied Architecture at the National Technical Univer-sity of Athens and at TU Delft. Since 2012 he has been involved in several academic activities at the Theory Section of the Faculty of Architecture of TU Delft as a guest researcher and lecturer. Currently, he is a PhD candi-date at IUAV Venice participating in the Villard d’ Honnecourt International Research Doctorate. His doctoral research focuses primarily on morpho-genetic processes framed within assemblage theory. He has published and lectured in Europe and abroad. He is a member of the editorial board of Footprint since 2014.

Katharina D. Martin read Aesthetics and Media Art in Germany and the Netherlands. She is Lecturer for Philosophy and Moving Image Theory and


notes on contributors 311

Moving Image Programme Coordinator at the ArtEZ University of the Arts, Arnhem, Netherlands. Her research gravitates around the concept of milieu as methodological instrument for the analyses of digital technology. Martin is associated investigator in the research project ‘Form, Code, Milieu’ in the Cluster of Excellence ‘Image Knowledge Gestaltung’ at the Humboldt Univer-sity of Berlin.

Kas Oosterhuis studied architecture at the Delft Technical University. In 1987–8 he taught as Unit Master at the AA in London and worked and lived in the former studio of Theo van Doesburg in Paris together with visual art-ist Ilona Lénárd for one year. Since 2000 Oosterhuis runs the chair of digital architecture / Hyperbody at the TU Delft. In his book Towards a New Kind of Building (2010) Oosterhuis shares his thoughts on parametric design, non-standard and interactive architecture.

Rachel Prentice is an Associate Professor in the Department of Science & Technology Studies at Cornell University. Her work focuses on questions about bodies, training, knowledge and the senses in biomedical educa-tion and animal studies. In 2013, she published Bodies in Formation: An Ethnography of Anatomy and Surgery Education (Durham: Duke University Press, 2013).

Peg Rawes is Professor in Architecture and Philosophy and Programme Director of the Masters in Architectural History at the Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London (UCL). Recent publications include: co-author with Beth Lord, Equal By Design (Lone Star Productions, 2016); co-editor of Poetic Biopolitics (London: IB Tauris, 2016); editor of Relational Architectural Ecologies (London: Routledge, 2013); and author of ‘Humane and Inhumane Ratios’ in The Architecture Lobby’s Asymmetric Labors (2016) and ‘Spinoza’s Geometric and Ecological Ratios’, in The Politics of Parametri-cism: Digital Technologies in Architecture, edited by Manuel Shvartzberg and Matthew Poole (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015).

Chris L. Smith is the Associate Professor in Architectural Design and Technê in the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Sydney. His research is concerned with the interdisciplinary nexus of philosophy, biology and archi-tectural theory. Chris has published on the political philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari; technologies of the body; and contemporary architectural theory. His recent work, Architecture in the Space of Flows was a book co-edited with Professor Andrew Ballantyne (London and New York: Routledge, 2013). Presently, Chris is concentrating upon an Australian Research Council project focused on the architectural expression of scientifi c ideals in bio-medical laboratories and a book currently in review titled Bare Architecture: A Schizoanalysis.



Sjoerd van Tuinen is Assistant Professor in Philosophy at Erasmus University Rotterdam and holds a PhD from Ghent University. He is editor of several books, including Deleuze Compendium (Boom, 2009), Deleuze and The Fold: A Critical Reader (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), De nieuwe Franse fi losofi e (Boom, 2011), Speculative Art Histories (Edinburgh University Press, forth-coming) and The Polemics of Ressentiment (Bloomsbury, forthcoming) and has authored Sloterdijk: Binnenstebuiten denken (Kampen: Klement, 2004).

Charles T. Wolfe is a Research Fellow in the Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Ghent University. He works primarily in history and philoso-phy of the early modern life sciences, with a focus on materialism and vital-ism. He is the author of Materialism: A Historico-Philosophical Introduction (Springer, 2016), and has edited volumes including Monsters and Philosophy (College Publications, 2005), The Body as Object and Instrument of Knowledge (Springer, 2010, with O. Gal), Vitalism and the Scientifi c Image (Springer, 2013, with S. Normandin) and Brain Theory (Palgrave MacMillan, 2014).


Index

abstraction, 9, 39, 44–5, 133–4abstract machines, 5–6, 11, 128, 162see also destratifi cation

access, 62–5, 67–70, 72–4; see also correlationism

activism, 87, 288, 301, 303actual(isation), 4, 9–10, 64, 136, 261, 292,

297, 301–3aesthetics, 6, 32, 34, 37, 53n, 67, 69, 75, 95,

117n50, 162, 203n, 233, 281aesthetic concept, 10aesthetic invention, 107, 110aesthetic object, 25aesthetic paradigm, 7aesthetic theory, 68, 71, 140n25see also ethico-aesthetic

affect, 8, 10, 13n, 26, 33, 37, 42, 45, 76n, 84–5, 269, 281, 292–3, 297–9, 302; see also Deleuze; Spinoza

affordance, 24n, 31, 33; see also GibsonAgamben, Giorgio, 244, 291agencement, 28; see also assemblageAI see artifi cial intelligenceAion, 292Alberti, Leon Battista, 65, 68–70, 72Allen, Stan, 23, 36, 39allostasis, 195–6, 259Amnesty International, 25AMO (research offi ce of OMA), 47amor fati, 302anaesthesia, 189, 194, 207–8, 245–6anthropology, 26, 30, 39, 107

embedded anthropology, 21, 44, 50n1anthropomorphism, 129, 143, 296anthropotechnics, 244, 248–50, 253, 260anthropo-urgy, 248apparatus, 28, 41, 61–3, 189, 192, 209, 214,

219n14Apple, 161, 163archaeology, 61, 188; see also genealogyarchitecture (T), 2– 5, 7, 9–10, 13n14, 15n46,

21–4, 29–30, 33–40, 42–9, 59–115, 143, 158, 160–4, 168–83, 234, 247

architect, 2, 24, 30–1, 36–7, 39–44, 46–7, 67–71, 81, 87, 90–1, 95, 101, 103, 107, 109, 112–13, 124–6, 128–9, 131–3, 136–7, 162–3, 179

architectonics, 12architectural body, 34architectural critique, 175architectural discourse, 42, 62, 64architectural form, 33, 35, 37, 53n, 65,

139n, 166n; see also formarchitectural history, 112, 126, 129–30,

133architectural production, 66, 75architectural robotics see roboticsArchitectural Robotics Lab, 143architectural theory, 37, 42, 48, 50n, 62–3,

66, 73automated architecture see digital

architecturedigital architecture, 42, 129, 131, 135–6starchitecture, 37, 162–4xenoarchitecture see Chusee also architectural design; architectural

education; autonomy turn; Baroque; built environment; envelopes; Gothic; plan; projective city; typology

Aristotle, 66, 272art, 2, 7, 9, 17n65, 39, 42, 44, 46, 53n63,

65, 71, 82, 107, 109–10, 113, 130, 162, 194, 249–50, 253, 255, 261

arthritis, 41, 190, 212–13, 217arthroscopy, 40, 211, 214, 216, 222artifi cial intelligence (AI), 125, 138n1,

163ascesis, 249a-signifying, 14n21, 101, 109, 117n50, 187;

see also semioticsassemblage, 4, 7, 9, 11, 28, 72, 134, 214, 281,

297, 299, 303Assemblage journal, 134, 140n20Assistive Robotic Table (ART), 145–50,

152–4, 156–7, 160, 162asymmetry, 250



augmented reality, 136, 194, 201; see also virtual reality

automata, 129, 270–1, 273, 275–7automation, 123–4, 128–9, 134–5, 137–8autonomy, 10, 46–8, 85, 125–6, 136–7autopoiesis, 32; see also heteropoiesis; open

system; Varela

Barad, Karen, 62–3, 192bare life, 260, 291Baroque, 129–30, 134Barthes, Roland, 101, 108–9, 112–13Bataille, Georges, 298beauty, 10, 25, 67, 72, 103, 247; see also

charis; grace; SpuybroekBenedict, Ruth, 30Bennett, Jane, 45Bentley System’s Generative Components, 36Bergson, Henri, 257bifurcation

of architecture, 67–8, 73of nature, 64, 68, 74, 247, 253see also Whitehead

biogenetics, 47bio-piracy, 295biopolitics, 80–2, 84, 87–9, 251, 256, 260;

see also Foucault; Spinozabio-power, 288, 291, 293, 296bios, 84, 295, 300bioscience, 26biosphere, 44, 252Birth of the Clinic, The, 188; see also Foucaultblack hole, 7, 257, 301body, 3, 10–11, 22–6, 28–9, 31–41, 45–8, 65,

67–8, 126, 128, 131–3, 169–75, 187–95, 198–201, 205–18, 221, 226, 229, 243, 253–4, 270, 272–80, 283n20, 293, 296–7, 300, 302–3

bio-technical body, 162body-brain, 257body-centrism, 280, 284n39body drift, 26; see also Krokerbody map, 25, 33, 36, 188–90, 192, 194,

198; see also Damasiobody multiple, 11, 24; see also Molbody plan, 63, 174–5body without organs, 3, 9; see also Deleuze

and Guattaricross-body movements, 156–7habit-body, 206–7Hyperbody, 182mind and body, 25, 32, 37, 40–1, 85, 131,

243, 259–61, 277, 280, 284, 294, 297

social body, 11, 251see also corporeality; embodiment

Borelli, Giovanni Alfonso, 270, 275both-and see VenturiBourdieu, Pierre, 207, 248Braidotti, Rosi, 9, 28–9, 32, 47, 50n4,

81–3, 87brain, 7, 25, 41, 55, 103, 115, 132, 137,

138n13, 142, 161, 165n24, 198, 222, 243–4, 254–62, 264n36, 280–1, 284, 293; see also neurosciences

Building Information Management (BIM), 44built environment, 75, 90–1, 95, 98, 103,

126, 152, 161, 168–9, 172, 179–80, 186, 189, 191

CAD (computer-aided design), 132CAD–CAM (computer-aided design–computer-

aided manufacturing), 132Canguilhem, Georges, 2, 275, 284n38capitalism, 44, 46, 86, 244, 255, 297

advanced, 291–6, 298, 300bio-genetic, 295cognitive capitalism see advanced

capitalismneurocapitalism, 258

care, 11, 21–4, 27, 30, 56, 80–7, 95, 123–6, 131, 137–8, 143–50, 152, 222, 244–5, 255, 262, 288–9, 294

care of the self, 81–7, 95; see also FoucaultCartesian coordinate systems, 231–2cartography, 3–4, 12, 23, 38, 50n4, 125, 133,

227, 233, 235, 243, 289, 291, 293, 296, 303; see also mapping

catastrophe theory, 44; see also chaos theoryCentre for Contemporary Architecture, 182Champalimaud Centre for the Unknown,

101–7chaos theory, 27; see also catastrophe theory;

complexity theorycharis, 10; see also beauty; SpuybroekChronos, 292Chu, Karl S., 46–7Clark, Andy, 278, 280clinic, 21, 24, 32, 112, 146, 188clinical, 1–2, 6, 12n2, 26–8, 35, 40, 101–3,

109–11, 115n1, 143, 146–7, 149–50, 187, 189, 195, 227, 233, 243–4, 250, 253, 257, 294, 303

Clough, Patricia, 293CNC (computer numerical machine), 181–2coding, 128, 132, 134, 292–3, 296–7, 302–3collective enunciation, 10


index 315

complexity, 134, 172computation, 27, 35, 40–2, 46–8, 125, 128–38;

see also programmingcomputational turn see digital turnconatus, 84conceptual persona, 65, 72concrete rules, 6, 11, 162; see also

stratifi cationcontext, 12, 23, 28, 33, 90–1, 110, 112, 196control society, 82convergence, 161–3, 293corporeal space, 9, 187, 189–90, 192–3, 195,

198corporeality, 9, 68, 273correlationism, 61, 63–4; see also accesscraft, 48, 131–3, 205–7, 217critique, 1–2, 6, 12n2, 27–8, 39, 47, 86–7,

101, 109–10, 123, 243, 250, 253, 257, 288–92, 295–6, 298–9, 302–3

culture, 10, 16n58, 23, 27–8, 30, 42, 46–8, 61, 128, 136, 161, 192, 217, 247–50, 253, 290

digital culture, 35Greek culture, 10high-technology culture, 26, 37material culture, 27network culture, 260surgical culture, 218see also nature and culture

cybernetics, 6, 32, 34–5, 44, 133, 192, 256–7

cyber-sociability, 44cyberspace, 23, 136cyberPLAYce, 163–4cyber-physical system, 163–4post-cyber, 32

Da Vinci system, 226, 229Damasio, Antonio, 25, 32data, 23, 36, 41, 96n4, 133–4, 136, 144,

154–5, 170–1, 182–3, 188, 190, 194, 230, 236, 293, 295, 300

big data, 125, 134, 293degrees of freedom (DOF), 221, 224–5,

228, 231DeLanda, Manuel, 134Deleuze, Gilles, 1–3, 5, 7–10, 44–5, 65, 72,

101–2, 109–11, 113, 115, 137, 160–2, 196–8, 248–9, 252–3, 256–7, 269, 288, 291–2, 297–300; see also affect; body without organs; fold; health; plastic principle; semiotics; symptom; A Thousand Plateaus

Deleuze and Guattari, 10, 45, 50n5, 102, 109, 113, 115, 137, 160–2, 196–8, 256–7, 269, 291–2, 299; see also A Thousand Plateaus

dematerialisation see abstractionDerrida, Jacques, 260, 305Descartes, René, 76n16, 209, 219n14, 270,

273–5design, 34, 47, 53n63, 80–95, 143–51, 1

55–8, 172, 174–5, 235, 243, 246, 249, 255, 262

architectural design, 10, 21–4, 30–1, 33–7, 39–42, 47–9, 61, 66–7, 70–2, 101–2, 125–6, 130–2, 136–8, 162–4, 179–82

digital design, 29, 130–5, 181–2urban design, 61–2, 133–4

desiring-production see productiondestratifi cation, 8–9, 108; see also

abstractiondetermination, 3–5, 11, 32, 37, 72–3, 84–5,

254, 256diagnostics, 1–2, 13n14, 28, 38, 189, 191–4,

198, 201, 221diagram, 5, 132, 139n14dialectics, 123, 243, 259, 288, 296–7,

299–300, 302–3dialysis, 21–2, 24, 30–3, 246Diderot, Denis, 271–3, 275differential, 9, 62–3, 86, 123, 297digital (Φ), 36, 39, 130, 132–3, 134, 137,

152, 154, 163–4, 174, 191, 194, 200–1, 235, 294

digital culture, 28, 35digital operating room assistant (DORA),

222, 235–7digital techniques, 22, 33, 40–2, 45, 50n1,

129–30, 139n15, 144, 175, 190digital turn, 6, 34, 41–2see also digital architecture; digital

designdisciplinarity, 7, 22–4, 33–4, 61, 75, 123–5,

137, 143, 222, 230dissimilarity, 84–6, 89dividual, 299DLR (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und

Raumfahrt), 41DOF see degrees of freedomDORA see digital operating room assistantdramatisation, 74–5drawing, 22–3, 36–7, 39, 45, 47, 126, 130,

135, 235Dreyfus, Hubert, 278duration, 73, 302



education, 82–3, 103architectural education, 22–3, 33–4, 37–41,

46, 48–9, 50n1, 181–2medical education, 32–3, 48, 188, 190–1see also learning; pedagogy; surgical

educationecology, 16n51, 21, 32, 38–9, 50n4, 84, 164,

185, 197–8, 201, 252, 298, 300ecology of practices, 61–3see also diffractive methodology; material-

discursive practices; umwelt; Three Ecologies

ecosophy, 87edge overlay, 195elasticity, 243–68embodied cognition, 32, 205, 277–8, 296embodiment, 3, 23–4, 26, 28, 37, 39–40,

62–3, 68, 107, 125–6, 128, 132, 135, 137, 171, 182–3, 205, 207, 209–10, 212–18, 252, 257, 269–70, 274–80, 289, 291, 294, 296–8, 300

emergence see eventemotion, 182empiricism, 4, 28, 73, 248, 252, 281enactivism, 278endoscopy, 40–1, 191, 194, 199–200, 222,

224, 227, 229energetics, 7enfant terrible, 250Engels, Friedrich, 271, 273, 275enlightenment, 24, 81–3, 86, 266n83,

290entailment, 12envelopes, 39epistemology, 29, 68, 74, 125, 132, 137,

187–8, 192, 196, 254, 290episteme (Foucault), 61–3, 188epistemology of simulation, 139n15folk epistemology, 24

essence, 63, 66, 73, 260eternal return, 252, 259ethics, 6, 26, 45, 258affi rmative ethics, 299–303ethical ratio, 82ethico-aesthetic, 6Ethics, The see Spinozahousing ethics, 83relational ethics, 291–2ethology, 12, 303etiology, 21, 109–10, 260e-topia, 163event, 4, 7, 11, 23, 37, 45, 73, 137, 196, 218,

245, 251, 257, 265n81, 301, 303

evolution, 5, 7, 29, 32, 129, 132–3, 136, 168–70, 175, 178, 248, 291

experience, 13n9, 23–5, 27, 33, 49, 72–5, 85, 112, 114, 190–1, 205–6, 211–12, 214–18, 234, 256, 258, 262, 279, 302

bodily experience, 44–5, 277–8, 283n28cognitive experience, 254emotional experience, 22eyes-on-experience, 200patient-centered experience, 31phenomenological experience, 74, 219n14sensory experience, 217subjective experience, 68, 74–5, 192see also sentience; touch

Facebook, 163, 178feelings, 25, 193, 248; see also Damasiofi ction, 126, 134, 199

philosophical fi ction, 68science-fi ction, 123, 129

fi rmitas, 66–7, 75, 160; see also Vitruviusfl ickering signifi er, 42, 45fl oating signifi er, 101–2, 107–10, 112, 115fl ow (F), 4–6, 39, 44, 160–1, 171, 173, 178,

297, 300–1workfl ow, 222, 235

fold, 31–2, 44, 110, 244, 253–4, 262form(alism), 9, 15n44, 33, 35, 37, 39, 43,

53n63, 65–6, 68–72, 75, 84, 109, 111–12, 115, 126, 129–30, 133, 161–3, 198, 200, 244, 251, 253, 255–7, 259, 272

(de)formation, 71, 75, 251, 297form(ation), 71, 75, 84, 112, 243, 251, 297see also architectural form

Foucault, Michel, 11, 13n9, 61–2, 81–4, 87, 188–9, 209, 247, 288–96; see also The Birth of the Clinic; le regard; The Order of Things; panopticon; ‘Society Must Be Defended’; technologies of the self

Fuller, Buckminster, 133

Gattungswesen, 247Geerz, Clifford, 30Gehry Technologies, 36Gelassenheit, 246, 262gender, 26, 46, 216, 281n3, 283n28genealogy, 47, 50n4, 62–5, 71, 250, 289; see

also archaeologygenerator of diversity (GOD), 26generic, 2genetics, 2, 21, 23, 46–7, 63, 73, 115,

175, 243, 261, 277, 293–6; see also morphogenesis


index 317

Gibson, James Jerome, 31, 33, 124gift economy, 10global positioning system (GPS), 225Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 2, 243Golub, Edward, 26Good, Byron, 24–8, 30, 32, 38, 48–9Gothic, 161GPS see global positioning systemgrace, 70, 152, 246–7, 279; see also beauty;

Three Gracesground (T), 6, 11, 25, 62–3, 66, 82, 217, 260,

262, 288–90, 301; see also subterranean trends

Guattari, Félix, 3–8, 10, 32, 45, 48, 81–3, 87, 102, 109, 113, 115, 137, 160–2, 165–6, 196–8, 256–7, 269, 281, 292, 299; see also Schizoanalytic Cartographies; A Thousand Plateaus; Three Ecologies

habit, 35, 95, 206–7, 217, 244, 248, 251–3, 255–6, 258, 260–2, 270, 303

habit-body see bodyhabitus, 207, 261hand, 36, 41, 126, 131–2, 147, 171, 189, 192,

194, 198, 205, 207–12, 214, 216–17, 221, 224, 227–31, 234, 261, 272, 293

haptic, 131, 214, 221–2, 224, 226, 229–30, 234

Haraway, Donna, 21, 23, 26–7, 29, 32, 37, 50n5, 82, 205, 270, 281n3, 291, 293, 298

Hayles, Katherine, 23, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, 42, 137

health, 1–3, 22, 83, 87–8, 110, 189–90, 199, 221, 223, 233, 289, 294

great health, 2see also Deleuze; Nietzsche

Heidegger, Martin, 219n14, 244, 246, 262, 281

Helmholtz, Hermann von, 271, 273, 275heteropoiesis, 1heuristics, 12, 137, 270, 275HIV (human immunodefi ciency virus), 295Hollein, Hans, 126–7home+, 143–50, 152, 158, 160, 162homeostasis, 7, 195–6, 253, 259; see also

symmetryhomo faber, 247housing, 34, 80–1, 83–91, 95, 126, 175

Housing and Planning Bill, 80Housing Standards Consultation, 95social housing, 80–1, 85–91, 95see also Starter Homes Design

humanism, 243–4, 249, 251–2, 260, 290; see also posthuman

humanities, 22, 24, 27–8, 47, 107, 289human-machine interface see interfacehylomorphism, 64

icon, 26–7, 108–9ideation, 49Illich, Ivan, 151, 162–4illness, 2–3, 24–5, 27, 49, 71, 190, 192–3,

198–9immanence, 3, 6–7, 9, 11, 66, 74, 243, 246,

252, 256–7, 260–2, 292, 298, 300, 303

immunology, 26–7, 31, 243–4, 250–3, 256–8, 260–2

immunological orchestra, 26see also Haraway; Sloterdijk

individuation, 2, 10, 74–5, 87, 297, 301information

information and communications technology (ICT), 174

information technology, 46, 161, 174, 293

information theory, 125, 133instrument, 22, 24, 41, 169, 187, 194–5,

198–201, 208, 210, 212–16, 218, 221–9, 231–2, 234–6, 272

instumentalism, 32, 34, 43, 290–1, 295interface, 43, 131, 171, 214, 262, 275

human-machine interface, 21–4, 29, 124, 132, 151, 162–3, 182

intra-action, 62–3Irigaray, Luce, 290

James, William, 248

Kant, Immanuel, 2, 75, 76n16, 289, 301kinaesthetics, 40–1, 210, 215kinematics, 152–5Klein bottle, 111Koolhaas, Rem, 46–8, 139n14; see also

OMAKraftwerk, 129Kwinter, Sanford, 9, 16n58, 64

La Mettrie, Julien Offray de, 269, 272–3, 275–6, 281

landscape, 23, 34–5, 115laparoscopy, 40, 211, 231, 234Latour, Bruno, 28–9, 31, 38, 50n5,

244Le Corbusier, 48, 65, 70–2, 75, 86, 128



learning, 12n2, 39–40, 48–9, 205, 208–9, 230, 255–6, 260, 265n64

cognitive approach to learning, 40kinaesthetic approach to learning, 205, 208knowledge-based learning, 230problem-based learning, 24, 33, 48rules-based learning, 39, 230skill-based learning, 230see also surgical education

Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von, 129Lenin, Vladimir, 258Lévi-Strauss, Claude, 101, 107–11, 115,

251, 264libido, 9Library-Cubed, 164lineamenta, 68–9, 75; see also AlbertiLynn, Greg, 182

machineabstract machine, 5–6, 11, 69, 128, 162affective machine, 269, 281machine age, 124machinic phylum (Φ), 4, 63

magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 22, 190, 277

majoritarian, 292Malabou, Catherine, 243–4, 253–60man and nature, 22, 24mana, 101, 107–8, 111–12, 115Marx, Karl, 50n5, 244, 247–8, 271, 299Massumi, Brian, 3, 10, 62, 71–2, 109materia, 68–9materialism, 32, 42, 136, 271, 277, 280, 291–2,

296–8, 302; see also new materialismmateriality, 3, 14, 14n19, 22–3, 38–9, 42,

53n82, 62, 66–8, 111, 128, 130, 136, 278, 291

matters of concern, 31, 38Maya, 36mechanism, 269–71, 273–80

iatromechanism, 270, 273teleomechanism, 269, 273

mechatronics, 41, 125, 135medicine (F), 187–237; see also medical

educationMerleau-Ponty, Maurice, 206–7, 212, 218,

273, 278–9; see also habit; habit-bodymetamodelling, 6Microsoft, 154, 163milieu, 4, 12, 26, 67, 187, 193, 195–9, 201,

206, 248, 254minoritarian, 292

minor tradition, 9see also vortical model

MISIT (minimally invasive surgery and interventional technology) group, 222, 227

mnemotechnics, 249Mobius strip, 111modernity, 29, 64, 66, 71, 244, 246–51, 291

modernism, 71, 130see also rupture

Mol, Annemarie, 22–3, 25–6, 28–9, 32, 38, 41

Monism, 28, 292, 295–9, 302morphogenesis, 2, 9multiplicity, 26, 125, 201, 252

N-1, 9NASA (National Aeronautics and Space

Administration), 37nature and culture, 7, 247–8, 294, 298; see

also man and naturenear absolute material architecture, 137necro-politics, 294neurosciences, 33, 103, 125, 196, 243, 254;

see also brainnew materialism, 6, 271, 280Nietzsche, Friedrich, 2, 5, 243, 249, 251–2nomadism, 292, 297–8, 300–1, 303nomos, 6, 10non-, 74, 102, 114non-linguistic sign, 101non-organic vitality see zoenorm(ative), 2, 6, 26, 36, 217nosology, 188–9, 195NSA Nonstandard Architecture, 182NURB (non-uniform rational Basis spline), 36

OctArm, 153–4OMA (Offi ce for Metropolitan Architecture),

47, 139; see also AMO; KoolhaasONL, 175–8, 180, 182ontology, 62, 64, 68, 134, 252, 276, 281, 292

mechanistic, 270, 274–6ontology of the event, 73political, 292relational, 84, 86

operable man, 245–6, 252operating room (OR), 2, 209, 212, 217–18,

221–2, 234–7, 246Oppositions journal, 134Order of Things, The, 61; see also Foucault

pain, 25, 64, 189, 193, 223, 225, 249, 300–2Pallasmaa, Juhani, 132panopticon, 247parametricism, 16


index 319

particle-signs, 108passive syntheses, 249pathology, 30, 38, 189, 193, 205–6, 216pedagogy (U), 6, 33; see also education;

learning‘people who are missing’ (Deleuze), 110philosophy (U), 243–308phylum see machinic phylumplan, 47, 70, 91, 103

body plan, 63, 174–5plane of consistency, 6, 12plasticity, 72, 243, 251–62

plastic principle, 5, 72polar coordinate systems, 228, 232; see also

Cartesian coordinate systemspositron emission topography (PET), 23posthumanism, 28, 32, 48, 293, 295–6,

298–9postmodernism, 26, 46, 134, 278potential, 288, 301, 303potestas, 288–9, 291, 299power of the false, 252practice

hermeneutic practice, 38; see also representation

material practice, 9, 39–40, 42, 46material-discursive practices, 63see also Allen; design practice

pragmatism, 109Prentice, Rachel, 25–6, 29, 32–4, 39–42,

190–3production

desiring-production, 1image production, 36–7knowledge production, 61, 187, 191, 193production of variation, 6, 14see also synthesis

projective city, 44–5Prometheanism, 244proprioception, 40–1, 213, 216, 229prosthetics, 162, 248, 253Protevi, John, 303

queer, 291

ratio see reasonrationalism, 4, 85

digital rationalism, 130geometric ratio, 81, 83, 85, 89, 95, 130humane ratio, 85

Ravaisson, Félix, 248, 261realism, 36, 123, 192, 247, 292reason, 45, 66–8, 80–7, 89, 243, 290regard, le, 209

representation, 23, 30, 32–3, 36–7, 39–43, 47, 68, 74–5, 107, 129, 133, 190, 200, 205–6, 209, 217, 222, 227, 233–5, 277; see also visualisation

RFID (radio-frequency identifi cation), 235rheostasis, 196rhizome, 6, 9, 300Robin Hood Gardens, 87, 90robotics (Φ), 123–83

architectural robotics, 138, 143, 147, 160–1

continuum robotics, 147, 152–4, 158, 160robot, 41, 123, 126, 129, 133, 143, 145,

152–4, 158, 172–4, 233robotic condition, 168

rupture, 69–71, 74, 257

schizoanalysis, 9Schizoanalytic Cartographies, 4–5, 8semiotics, 7, 47, 101; see also a-signifying;

fl oating signifi er; non-linguistic sign; particle-sign; sign

sentience, 64, 74sign, 108–9, 113, 115Simondon, Gilbert, 133simulation, 15n47, 129, 132–8, 144, 201,

210, 234, 296singularity, 7–8, 135skill, 26, 33, 42, 72, 128, 190, 194, 205–7,

209–10, 212, 216–17, 221, 230Sloterdijk, Peter, 31, 243–8, 250, 252–3,

255–6, 258, 261–2smart

SMART (simple, minimal dimensions, application based, reliable and transparent to use) approach, 226–9

smart city, 163smart design, 179

Smithson, Alison and Peter, 87, 90; see also Robin Hood Gardens

social constructivism, 192, 298social technology of belonging, 62‘Society Must Be Defended’, 11socius, 32, 44; see also cyber-sociabilityspatium, 3speculation, 42, 162sphereology, 31, 44, 48, 72, 252, 261; see also

SloterdijkSpinoza, Benedict de, 2, 25, 67, 80–6, 95, 278Spuybroek, Lars, 10, 107Starter Homes Design, 95Stengers, Isabelle, 61–2stratifi cation, 6, 8, 10; see also destratifi cation;

individuation



subjectivation, 7–8, 12, 28–9, 63–4, 82, 84, 87, 196–7, 199, 218, 244, 246, 249–52, 258, 262, 269–70

subterranean trends, 44surgery, 25, 71, 124, 189–91, 193–5, 199,

245, 253minimally invasive (key-hole) surgery, 40–1,

44, 206, 209–10, 212, 214–17, 221–7, 229–31, 236–7

surgical education, 205–18symmetry, 6, 8, 27, 66, 175, 269; see also

asymmetrysymptom(atology), 1–3, 11, 13n, 28, 49, 71,

109–10, 187–8, 193, 198–9, 201synthesis, 2, 10, 26, 252, 262swarm, 170, 172, 182, 275

tableau, 188–9, 198technology (F)biotechnology, 125, 135, 293nanotechnology, 135technologies of the self, 81see also digital; mechatronicstechnoscience, 23, 29, 32tectonics, 29, 35teleomechanism see mechanismterritory (T) existential, 4, 6–9, 12, 160–1, 300therapeutics, 1, 13n14, 110, 155–6Thousand Plateaus, A, 6, 11, 102, 113, 160;

see also Deleuze and GuattariThree Ecologies, 48, 87, 298Three Graces, 10–11tomography, 190, 194Tools for Convivality see Illich, Ivantouch, 37, 40, 131, 140, 152, 189, 205, 209,

212, 229transductive relation, 262transversality, 7, 32, 48, 86–7, 192, 195,

297–8, 303

TU Delft, 1, 33–4, 124, 182, 227two cultures, 28typology, 66, 152

Uexkü ll, Jacob von, 14n23, 196–7, 201umwelt (Uexküll), 4, 196–7uncanny valley, 222, 233–5, 237unconscious, 9, 126, 189, 251, 255, 258, 298universes of reference (U), 4–5Urbild, 197utilitas, 66–8, 75; see also Vitruvius

Varela, Francisco, 32, 278Venturi, Robert and Denise Scott Brown,

161–2venustas, 66–7, 75; see also Vitruviusvirtual(isation), 4, 6–7, 9–10, 35, 64–6, 75,

136, 189, 194, 200, 208–10, 218, 229, 303

virtual reality (VR), 35, 42, 136, 200, 230, 233–4; see also augmented reality

Visible Human Project, 41–3, 45, 190visualisation, 35, 37–8, 40, 48, 146, 195,

201, 227; see also representationVitruvius, 65–70, 72, 166n26; see also

fi rmitas; utilitas; venustasvortical model, 160–1

‘We are the Robots’ see Kraftwerkwelfare, 80, 82–3, 88, 288What You See Is What You Get (WYSIWYG),

135Whitehead, Alfred North, 64, 67, 73–4, 247World Wide Web, 163

X-ray, 191–5, 198–9, 226–7

zoe, 28, 32, 81, 84, 86–7, 292–6, 298–301zone of indiscernibility, 111


critical and clinical cartographies - cornell university › linked docs › the... · edinburgh...

Documents